State v. Marcum
2013 Ohio 2189
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Patricia Marcum appeals consolidated municipal court convictions and sentences.
- Appellant admitted probation violation in one case and pled guilty to obstructing official business in another.
- Plea agreements included a no-contact provision with her husband James Marcum.
- The no-contact provision was included in the 2012 plea but not in the prior Marcum I case.
- Appellant challenged the no-contact order as a potential due-process/constitutional issue.
- Court affirms the judgment, holding any error invited and the constitutional claim not preserved for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stay-away order was proper as a condition of community control. | Marcum argues the no-contact term was improper. | Marcum contends the order invaded marital rights and/or was improperly included. | Invited-error doctrine bars review; affirmed. |
| Whether the stay-away order violates the constitutional right to marriage. | Jurisdictional/constitutional right to marry implicated. | Not properly raised on appeal; waiver and preservation issues. | Not reviewed on appeal; denied on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 2012-Ohio-572 (4th Dist. Nos. 11CA8 & 11CA10 (Marcum I) (2012)) (reversed probation no-contact order in Marcum I; relevant background to current case)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 ((1967)) (fundamental right to marriage acknowledged)
- State v. Hicks, - (-) (invited error doctrine applicable to plea negotiations)
- State v. Rizer, - (-) (invited error doctrine applies to negotiated pleas)
- State v. Patterson, - (-) (invited error doctrine in plea context)